Well, you know, it seems to me that what the City is saying is that the people who testified on what occurred to them did not happen and that they're lying.
And that seems to me to be a terrible thing to be saying.
The evidence is loud and clear that human experimentation, uncivilized human experimentation, taking advantage of low-income people, of minorities, even of women as well as men, occurred. There are many witnesses. 71 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 Now, in legal cases and in investigative inquiries, it's human beings who testify. You don't wait until some record appears in a book; you either have to decide are these people telling the truth or are there engaged, in your judgment, in a massive conspiracy of some kind to lie and to create a circumstance that you say didn't occur. Didn't these companies -- weren't they involved until the experimentation --
The man that was supposed to be the man that was basically in charge of the University of Pennsylvania? Can you tell us if he says nothing like this ever occurred?
Dr. Kligman hasn't denied that nothing like this occurred. I believe his position is that there were experiments that were done and that they were fine. And that's his position. (Laughter.)
It seems to me 72 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 that -- Councilman Nutter?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. King? Mr. King, let me ask you just a couple questions, and this may be a long the lines of what Councilman Ortiz asked. I had written this down initially and then I wrote some other notes to myself. Have you been able to determine whether any experimentation at Holmesburg Prison between the years of 1948 and 1974?
I haven't been able to determine that based on any City records or any City witnesses. We only know that from the people who are complaining. That's the only basis we would have to form that opinion.
So let me make sure I understand. You have not been able to determine independently whether any experimentation occurred at Holmesburg Prison between 1948 and 1974.
Now, let me ask about your investigation. I'm reading from a 73 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 letter from Wendy White, Vice President and General Counsel from the University of Pennsylvania, dated June 5th to Councilman Cohen. This is a letter basically explaining why the University cannot testify here today. But what they say is that the medical testing at Holmesburg ceased nearly 30 years ago. Prior to and after its cessation, it was the subject of hearings in the United States Senate in March of 1973, State legislative hearings in June 1973, litigation and extensive discussions in the media. In recent years, the University and Dr. Kligman have publicly commented on this issue. And then they go on to talk about the litigation in the Third Circuit presently. Would you take from this letter and the opening sentence, the medical testing at Holmesburg ceased nearly 30 years ago, does that lead you to believe that there was medical testing 30 years ago?
If that's what -- are you saying that's what the University of Pennsylvania said?
I'm reading from a 74 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 letter on University of Pennsylvania stationary signed by Wendy White, Esquire, Vice President and Office of the General Counsel. Her letter to Councilman Cohen says, "The medical testing at Holmesburg ceased nearly 30 years ago."
That medical testing occurred at Holmesburg Prison, according to the University of Pennsylvania. I mean, I don't dispute that. I'm saying --
Right. I'm saying that the City hasn't been able to independently verify it and we have no records. I mean, that's all I'm saying.
Well, why does the University of Pennsylvania know that it occurred and the City doesn't?
It's our prison, right? 75 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171
No, that's a different question. I don't know what records they have or how long they keep them. I don't know. We asked them for their records too, and they didn't turn them over.
They did not turn them over? Well, let me ask you this question: The United States Senate and the state legislative hearings from 1973, are you aware of those hearings?
Have you read any of the testimony from those hearings?
Inmates, officials, lots of people. 76 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171
What officials testified at the hearing? I didn't have the opportunity to read the testimony.
Oh, I can't remember what officials, but I know inmates and other people testified at the hearings.
Did any officials from the prison testify at either of these legislative hearings?
Did any officials from the University of Pennsylvania testify at any of these hearings?
But it's been years since I read that; I haven't read it in a long time.
Well, let me make sure I'm understand this. There were complaints made by individuals about human experimentation in a City-owned facility.
You read the notes of testimony from United States Senate hearings and state legislative hearings, you believe, two years ago.
But you have no 14 recollection now, and are not aware now, of any of the official individuals who may have testified in those hearings about human experimentations alleged at a City prison?
And you have no 20 recollection of any of the parties involved?
Have you interviewed the author of the book? You indicated that you had read the book.
I didn't interview him, no. 78 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171
There would be no reason for me to interview him; we have the book, we know what he said.
Can people in the audience hear the responses? AUDIENCE MEMBERS: No. 14
Because I'm having great difficulty here. I would like the witness to specifically answer about whether he read the book or not.
Okay. And you're saying in the investigatory process to try to get 79 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 answers to these questions, that you are comfortable in leaving the scope of the investigation to the reading of the book versus having a discussion with the author of the book, who is a live person that you could actually talk to.
Yeah, and I'm going to tell you what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that we read the book, we knew what was in the book. For purposes of discussing with the inmates prior to the litigation as to whether the City was willing to put money on the case, we knew what we needed to know. But as far as the lawsuit went, we probably would have deposed Mr. Hornblum, but we never got that far. I mean, I would not have left it after the lawsuit started to move forward without taking the man's deposition but, you know, we weren't at that point. I mean, we had enough information 80 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 before the lawsuit began where there was a basis for to us engage the inmates and their attorneys in a discussion about whether they could be compensated. I mean -- but it's a different situation, when, you know -- I mean, even now, if people could provide the City with some documentation and records some medical records and some expert testimony, I mean, the Law Department will look at that and consider compensating these people, but nothing's forthcoming.
Let me try to understand something. I mean, is this strictly -- I mean, is there a philosophy at work here that we've got a complaint, put aside the egregious nature, the outrageous nature, the travesty and tragedy that's happened aspects of this. We have a complaint, we'd like to get to the bottom of it; if we can settle it, we'd like to settle it and move on. Is that fundamentally what we're dealing with here?
Is there any 81 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 interest in a search for the truth? Is there any interest in trying to figure out actually what happened and who did what to whom and who should have responsibility for it? And at the end of it all -- I mean, there might be a financial settlement, but is there any interest in the search and in the pursuit of truth, which then might lead to an acknowledgment that something wrong has happened and subsequently and finally an apology? Is that a part of this? Or is it just --
-- let's figure out what the number is and have everybody go away?
Absolutely, Councilman. And that's what we were doing. When we became aware of the book, we were trying to gather information to try to determine what went on at Holmesburg Prison, who was involve and how the people were injured. That's what we were doing.
That was in '97, sir. 82 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171
How long does it take you to figure out that something very bad happened at Holmesburg and that it was sanctioned by the City?
And the City refuses to acknowledge that it was sanctioned by the City, and even refuses to offer on apology. How long will it take? Will it take until they all die? And then there will be really no records.
I told you, in the process 83 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 that we were going in before the -- the City was willing before we talked to --
I understand. Let's figure about the process for a moment; that's on the legal side.
I'm talking about the pursuit of information and anybody's notion of justice and what's right and what's wrong. You don't need a process to go interview people, if that is the pursuit. So I guess that's the part I'm trying to understand.
I mean, obviously, you know, I'm at a slight disadvantage. You're attorneys, I'm not; you're in a much better position to talk about who does what to whom, who deposes whom, we've got a case, we've got a process, rules of civil procedure, rules of federal procedure. It's all very interesting. What I'm saying is, if someone is out on a mission to find out what happened, you interview anybody you want to interview about whatever you want to interview 'em about, and if 84 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 they're around and alive, you go and talk to 'em.
Well, I have two responses to that. I'm telling you that before the lawsuit was filed, we felt we had a basis to engage the inmates in discussions about settling the case. We didn't feel we needed to go and interview Dr. Kligman or anyone else. We felt we had enough information to engage them in a discussion about resolution of the case.
When the lawsuit started, certainly Dr. Kligman would have been someone else that we would have deposed, but I can guarantee you that even before the litigation, when we got letters from counsel for the inmates, that's how we knew they wanted to engage in settlement discussions. The counsel for the inmates also sent letters to Dow Chemical, Johnson & Johnson, and Penn, and sort of behind the City's back, were trying to get money from them. If I had called up Dr. Kligman and said, "I want to interview you," chances are, his attorney would have said no. So, I mean, I know that because I know what goes on, and I'm telling 85 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 you that at the time we engaged in the discussions with the inmates, we felt we had enough information to at least engage them in a discussion about it, and we had hoped that they would provide us with some information so that we could sit down and make a decision about whether we should compensate people, but we just didn't get the information.
Just so I understand, and, I mean, as you obviously know, I'm not an expert in the procedure, but now that there is a lawsuit, do you at some point in time have a conversation with Dr. Kligman or any of these other parties involved?
Well, the problem with the lawsuit was -- and, again, you're going to be annoyed with me because I'm going to talk about the process, but the process works like this: You get the lawsuit in, you send out written questions, you ask for documents. When those are done, you review those written questions, you review the documents, then you schedule the depositions to interview the people. We would have deposed everybody, all of the inmates, we'd still be involved in that. 86 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171
The problem was, we never got the initial information, and after having waited and waited, the City made a decision, All right, you're not providing us with any information, we're going to file our motion and the plaintiff's attorney never responded to it, never said one thing; we just filed our motion. No 10 response, it was dismissed.
I filed a motion for summary judgment. I said the two-year statute --
Yes. I said the two-year statute has run, and no one's provided us with any information on --
Because plaintiffs lost and then appealed. 87 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171
But they never filed a response to what was said; that would even have been helpful.
Do you think, sir, that the only interest of the City of Philadelphia is in this lawsuit and not in the question as to whether this human experimentation occurred?
Are you saying that the only concern the City has is to dispose of a lawsuit.
And if people who filed the lawsuit didn't give you the information you needed, then your responsibility was over? You're not concerned really with whether it happened? What kind of a government do we have in Philadelphia that permits people entrusted to it to be subject to this kind of illegal conduct?
That threatens the 88 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 (indiscernible) --
You're only interested in whether we're going to pay out dollars?
That's what Frank Keel, the Mayor's advisor, said, that he was startled that City Council was interested in something where the City was the defendant. Why should he have been startled; shouldn't the City have been investigating it from the moment a rumor, just a rumor, started? The City should have been involved full-scale in trying to determine all of the facts. You should have been talking to everybody here long before a lawsuit was filed. Now, I'm not saying you as a lawyer; you're the City's lawyer. But to your knowledge, has any other part of the City government -- has the Mayor been interested in this issue? Have any 89 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 other people involved in City policy been interested, or are they saying to you, Try to figure out a way to get this case finished so it will be out of the way?
We want to pay as little as possible to take advantage. The people involved were poor people, so they probably don't have enough money to carry through with the lawsuit anyway?
Well, who is it in the Law Department, in defense of this case, is working to find out all of the facts of this case?
When this came in, as I recall, there was communication from the Mayor's Office to look into this to see what we can do for these people, and that's what I was doing when we got the information; I was trying to find out what went on to establish a basis to compensate the 90 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 inmates for what may have gone on. And when you say, do we have an interest in doing anything other than --
Well, let me tell you one person who certainly knows a lot: The author of the book, Allen Hornblum, who happened not only to be the author of the book, but he -- wasn't he a member of the Board of Prisons for many years?
He was active in the whole prison society; the City was depending on him for information in general about prisons; they were depending in large parts on his judgment. Have you ever interviewed him personally and said, Allen, come in. I don't want to talk about your book; I want to know what is it you know about the situation? Have you been barred in any way from doing that?
I think I explained that already. 91 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171
I told you about the process we went through to get to the bottom of this, that we had --
Have you ever called him on the phone and said, Can we talk about --
Are you hoping this is a bad dream that's going to go away?
Who in the City -- it's not going to go away, because until the City comes to grips with this problem, either submits proof that it never occurred or submits an apology of it did occur and takes remedial steps to try to make whole these injuries suffered and damages suffered by these people, not that they can ever be made whole, but at least the City ought to be out trying to show that it doesn't believe in this kind of unprincipled conduct, and that people entrusted to it, whether in the prison system or in hospitalization or in any other form, are entitled 92 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 to respect as human beings. Isn't that what this thing is about, for government to do? What was done here is unthinkable.
And that's the reason we wanted the City to have an opportunity to say, The moment we learned about this, we got excited, it couldn't be so, we'd never do it. And, by God, if we did it, we're sorry, and we want to make whole everybody involved.
Not through the course of a lawsuit, but because it's the decent, proper, responsible thing to do.
Well, tell me, who other than the lawyers for the City have been working on this problem?
That's who the Mayor's Office inquired of, and we were the ones who handled it.
Sir, what you did 93 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 was to file for summary judgment.
That was after we got no 4 cooperation from anyone. I mean, we're sitting here now, there were 200-and-something plaintiffs, sir. Even before they filed the lawsuit, their attorney wouldn't even give us the names. We're, like, Give us the names, give us their dates of births, give us their Social Security numbers so that we can see if we have any information on any of these people, and their attorneys refused to give us the information. How are we supposed to know, how are we supposed to do an investigation --
If you come in and you say that you're John Smith -- (Audience members shout out in response to Mr. King.)
Wait a minute. If you come in and you say you're John Smith and you were in Holmesburg Prison --
-- and this happened to you, 94 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 how's the City going to research its records. We might have something on you from -- (Audience members shout out in response to Mr. King.)
Mr. King -- (Audience members shout out in response to Mr. King.)
You can go back -- we might have something on John Smith from 1980, but how many John Smiths have been in the prison system. We need to know more than your name; we need to know your date of birth, we need to know some identifying information that differentiates you from all of the other people who have had your name. And before the lawsuit and during the lawsuit, nobody provided the City any information like that, despite the fact that we asked and we asked and we asked.
Mr. King, I think you can understand that it is a little -- this is 95 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 not directed to you individually but, I mean, you have to understand that it is slightly disingenuous when a claim is made about something that may have happened in a government institution and the person making the claim has the burden, seemingly the complete burden, of responsibility to produce records, produce documents, and they were an incarcerated person in a system that has more records and documents about more people than anyone could ever figure out.
And that the defense is, Well, since you can't prove that you were here, even though we had you -- I mean, it's not like people produce their own paperwork when they are either incarcerated or processed; that is all generated by the government. And, I mean, your testimony is, We don't have it, we don't know who was here, we don't know when they were here, we don't know what happened to 'em while they were here, but if you can bring a truckload of information in and show us, we maybe will believe that you were here and that something may have happened to you, and if it 96 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 looks okay, we might settle with you. We'll never actually get to the bottom of it, and we may not research for ourselves to determine that you were actually here and something may have happened to you, but if you can flood with us enough paperwork and information to prove that you may have been around or close to it at that time, we'll settle your case, goodbye.
I mean, you understand that that's not necessarily how we want to conduct business.
If you put it that way, it sounds like it's disingenuous, but that's not what I was doing, it's not what the City was doing. In a normal lawsuit --
Are you saying that we don't know who was incarcerated at Holmesburg Prison between 1948 and 1974?
We have no documents to know that, none at all. (Audience members shout out in response to Mr. King.)
Let me tell you something: If one of these individuals here today goes out, goes out, commits a crime --
-- somewhere in the report, it will say, "Joe Smith, with a prison record dating back to Holmesburg 1970, 1965..."
First of all, that may be true; there may be a record. You know, if you have a record from 1964, there may be a record. First of all, it's not going to tell you what prison it's in; and second of all, which is my point that I was trying to make, I can't find it if you don't tell me your name, you date of birth, and some supporting information. How am I going to look for 98 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 it.
I appreciate that. Let me finish my questions. I think I left with, you did not interview Dr. Kligman; is that correct?
Have you interviewed anyone from Dow Chemical about this issue?
Have you interviewed anyone from the University of Pennsylvania about this issue?
Have you interviewed any former prison officials, guards, or inmates about any of these issues?
I've had confidential attorney-client-privileged conversations with people about this, but I haven't talked to anybody who was there at the time.
Well, is there 99 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 anyone who was in an official capacity at the time that is still alive?